Imagine that you receive the
following letter.[1]
Do you agree with its author? Is umbrellaology a science? If so, why? If
not, how does it fall short of being a science? How does it compare to
astronomy?

ADear
Sir:

I am taking
the liberty of calling upon you to be the judge in a dispute between me and an
acquaintance who is no longer a friend. The question at issue is this: Is my
creation, umbrellaology, a science? Allow me to explain this situation. For
the past eighteen years, assisted by a few faithful disciples, I have been
collecting materials on a subject hitherto almost wholly neglected by
scientists, the umbrella. The results of my investigations to date are
embodied in the nine volumes which I am sending to you under separate cover.
Pending their receipt, let me describe to you briefly the nature of their
contents and the method I pursued in compiling them. I began on the Island of
Manhattan. Proceeding block by block, house by house, family by family and
individual by individual I ascertained 1) the number of umbrellas possessed,
2) their size, 3) their weight, 4) their color. Having covered Manhattan
after many years, I eventually extended the survey to the other boroughs of
the City of New York, and at length completed the entire city. Thus I was
ready to carry forward the work to the rest of the state and indeed the rest
of the United States and the whole know world.

AIt
was at this point that I approached my erstwhile friend. I am a modest man,
but I felt I had the right to be recognized as the creator of a new science.
He, on the other hand, claimed that umbrellaology was not a science at all.
First, he said, it was silly to investigate umbrellas. Now this argument is
false because science scorns not to deal with any object, however humble and
lowly, even to the Ahind
leg of a flea@.
Then why not umbrellas? Next he said that umbrellaology could not be
recognized as a science because it was of no use or benefit to mankind. But
is not the truth the most precious thing in life? And are not my nine volumes
filled with the truth about my subject? Every word is true. Every sentence
contains a hard, cold fact. When he asked me what was the object of
umbrellaology I was proud to say, >To seek and discover the truth is object
enough for me=. I am a pure scientist; I have no
ulterior motives. Hence it follows that I am satisfied with truth alone.
Next, he said my truths were dated and that any one of my findings might cease
to be true to-morrow. But this I pointed out, is not an argument against
umbrellaology, but rather an argument for keeping it up to date, which is
exactly what I propose. Let us have surveys monthly, weekly or even daily to
keep our knowledge abreast of the changing facts. His next contention was
that umbrellaology had entertained no hypotheses and had developed no theories
or laws. This is a great error. In the course of my investigations, I
employed innumerable hypotheses. Before entering each new block and each new
section of the city, I entertained an hypothesis as regards the number and
characteristics of the umbrellas that would be found there, which hypotheses
were either verified or nullified by my subsequent observations, in accordance
with proper scientific procedure, as explained in authoritative texts. (In
fact, it is interesting to note that I can substantiate and document every one
of my replies to these objections by numerous quotations from standard works,
leading journals, public speeches of eminent scientists and the like.) As for
theories and laws, my work presents an abundance of them. I will here mention
only a few, by way of illustration. There is the Law of Color Variation
Relative to Ownership by Sex. (Umbrellas owned by women tend to great variety
of color, whereas those owned by men are almost all black.) To this law I have
given exact statistical formulation. (See vol. 6, Appendix I, Table 3, p.
582.) There are the curiously interrelated Laws of Individual Ownership of
Plurality of Umbrellas, and Plurality of Owners of Individual Umbrellas. The
interrelationship assumes the form, in the first law, of almost direct ratio
to annual income, and in the end, of almost inverse ratio to annual income.
(For an exact statement of the modifying circumstances, see vol. 8, p. 350.)
There is also the Law of the Tendency towards Acquisition of Umbrellas in
Rainy Weather. To this law I have given experimental verification in chapter
3 of volume 3. In the same way I have performed numerous other experiments in
connection with my generalizations.

AThus
I feel that my creation is in all respects a genuine science, and I appeal to
you for substantiation of my opinion.@